On the problem of killing orcs, etc.

Afterburner

Remarkably expressive bandages
RPGnet Member
Validated User

NathanS

Registered User
Validated User
Blessed Scrolls of Genocide are in woefully short supply.

I'm not, because I have zero problem with the notion of mind flayers being considered "kill-on-sight" by a party of adventurers. It does not cause me a shred of disquiet.
The point he's trying to make is "A monster that s inherently antithetical to human existence (at least as anything but lie stock) means we get to ill things on sight guilt free.. But WHY do we want to be ill things on sight guilt free? What does it say about us if that's something we want in our entertainment?"

That is the existence of something that can be killed guilt free on sight, is not the thing he's questioning, its why we made such a thing in the first place.
 
Last edited:

NobodyImportant

Registered User
Validated User
Because not everyone is interested in philosophical debates when they sit down to play. Sometimes a monster is just a monster.

Why mind flayers specifically? Because they’re cool.
 

Afterburner

Remarkably expressive bandages
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The point he's trying to make is "A monster that s inherently antithetical to human existence (at least as anything but lie stock) means we get to ill things on sight guilt free.. But WHY do we want to be ill things on sight guilt free? What does it say about us if that's something we want in our entertainment?"

That is the existence of something that can be killed guilt free on sight, is not the thing he's questioning, its why me made such a thing in the first place.
I know.
 

Elfwine

Registered User
Validated User
I'm going to say it's not even about wanting philosophical debates here.

Things like this are me saying "I want to fight evils, and some of those evils are in the form of things like child eating ogres and brain eating aliens rather than in the form of absentee landlords, sadistic pirates, and people who portray Dr. Watson as an idiot."

Playing a character who tries to make the world a better place doesn't mean exclusively playing characters who feel all violence is wrong, or even who never attack first on a tactical level.
 
Last edited:

Shade the Lost

Registered User
Validated User
It can be nice at times to do without the need to wallow in guilt over whether or not you've done the right thing. If nothing is free game for attacking on sight, then everything is free game for "you're a bad person for failing to try to see things from their point of view." Also, frankly, sometimes PCs want to stop the bad things from happening before they happen. Fine, killing the evil vizier is nice and all, but killing him before he's sacrificed the princess to his dark gods while the PCs were off on one of his wild goose chases because they couldn't prove he was evil is much better. Enemies that are "fair game" allow PCs to be proactive about removing the ability for bad guys to do all of the horrible, nasty things that cannot be undone... and it also allows the PCs to do so before those bad things happen.
 

vitruvian

Registered User
Validated User
The point he's trying to make is "A monster that s inherently antithetical to human existence (at least as anything but lie stock) means we get to ill things on sight guilt free.. But WHY do we want to be ill things on sight guilt free? What does it say about us if that's something we want in our entertainment?"

That is the existence of something that can be killed guilt free on sight, is not the thing he's questioning, its why me made such a thing in the first place.
It could also be that the point of including such monsters isn't in order that the PCs have something to kill guilt free, but just because monsters that are inherently antithetical to human existence are a thing that fits well into many fictional worlds, including those developed for RPG play. I mean, people might just want to play in Lovecraft or Stephen King's worlds because they find those worlds interesting, not because it's pretty indisputable that it's okay to kill It/Pennywise if you can manage it.
 

DavetheLost

Registered User
Validated User
I'm kind of wondering why we have to have sapient-brain-eating illithids? It kind of feels like we're trying to justify a problem by coming up with a solution.
Well, we don't have to have sapient brain-eating ilithids. If you don't want them, or anything else that fills that niche, in your games, don't.

Some people like having clearly evil monsters in their games, and/or pretty black & white morality. Others prefer ambiguity and shades or grey.

And some of it is D&D legacy. Over four decades of D&D has a lot of legacy.
 

Afterburner

Remarkably expressive bandages
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Some people like having clearly evil monsters in their games, and/or pretty black & white morality. Others prefer ambiguity and shades or grey.
And it can be a mix. One can have nuanced, morally complex orcs and kill-on-sight mind flayers and it's okay.
 
Top Bottom